rt 382 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations; security; airport ticketing and check-in functions; ground-handling of aircraft; or air craft cleaning and sanitization functions and waste removal; or(B) a subcontractor that performs such functions;To be eligible for assistance, recipients must not conduct involuntary furloughs or reduce pay rates and benefits through September 30, 2020, and may not purchase an equity security in the carrier, contractor, or any parent company of the carrier or contractor, or pay any dividends through September 30, 2021.Additionally, the Senate bill provides that “Neither the Secretary, nor any other actor, department, or agency of the Federal Government, shall condition the issuance of financial assistance under this subtitle on an air carrier’s or contractor’s implementation of measures to enter into negotiations with the certified bargaining representative of a craft or class of employees of the air carrier or contractor under the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) or the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), regarding pay or other terms and conditions of employment.” This restriction on the federal government applies from the date of any assistance being provided through September 30, 2020.Financial assistance recipients must agree to freeze total compensation for non-union employees whose total compensation exceeded $425,000 in 2019 and limit severance to twice 2019 compensation levels, with additional limitations on those employees that earned more than $3 million in total compensation in 2019.

362 NLRB No. 173) (D.C. Cir. decided April 18, 2017)In a published opinion in this test-of-certification case, the Court enforced the Board’s bargaining order issued against this provider of fueling services for commercial aviation at Newark Liberty International Airport after a 44-member unit of its Fueling Supervisors/Dispatchers/Operations Supervisors, Maintenance Supervisors, and Tank Farm Supervisors voted in June 2012 to be represented by Local 553, International Brotherhood of Teamsters.In doing so, the Court upheld the Board’s determinations that the Employer is covered by the Act, rather than by the Railway Labor Act (RLA), and that the employees in question, despite their job titles and the Employer’s claims, were not supervisors excluded from coverage under Section 2(11).The Court noted that the status of an employer as a RLA-covered rail carrier, common air carrier, or “company which is directly or indirectly owned or controlled by or under common control of any carrier,” 45 U.S.C. §§ 151 First, 181, is determined under the “function and control” test articulated by the National Mediation Board (NMB), which administers the RLA. Under that test, the Court held that the Board properly rejected the Employer’s jurisdictional claim of RLA-coverage based on the lack of record evidence of carrier control.Specifically, the Court upheld the Board’s findings that the Employer failed to present evidence that the carriers at Newark Airport hold out the unit members to the public as their own employees, exercise control over how the employer runs its operations, supervise the unit members to a degree sufficient to establish control, or exert meaningful control over personnel decisions.Regarding the Employer’s assertion of supervisory status, the Court agreed with the Board that the Employer had failed to present evidence supporting its claims that the employees exercise disciplinary authority or responsibly direct other workers.On the issue of discipline, the Court stated that the

In 2014, the court, noting that it was a close call, certified a class, and discovery continued. The court also rejected the airline’s arguments under the California wage order that excluded employees governed by the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. § § 151 et seq., from coverage. (For those not familiar with it, the RLA also covers airlines, 45 U.S.C. § 181).

He didn’t; BNSF fired him and filed this special action.The Court of Appeals holds that the administrative proceedings, “which are conducted under the auspices of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 151-164, fall outside the scope of actions that the superior court is granted jurisdiction to entertain.”The parties apparently argued the case on the basis that the Act either did or didn’t preempt State authority.

On Monday, May 17, 2010, the Air Transport Association of America, Inc. filed suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prohibit the National Mediation Board from implementing its new Final Rule regarding the union election process. The suit claims that the NMB’s rule:violates the Railway Labor Act ("RLA"), 45 U.S.C. §§151 et seq., and is an unjustified departure from 75 years of Board practice in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act ("the APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§551 et seq.The Associated Press reports:Robert Siegel, an attorney for the airline association, said the NMB had rejected changing the rule on four previous occasions over the last three decades. The Supreme Court has twice upheld the right of the board to keep the old rule.The lawsuit argues that nothing has changed since those previous decisions, other than President Barack Obama appointing Linda Puchala — the former head of a flight attendant union — to a seat on the three-member board, shifting the balance of power.More commentary:"Airlines sue to block union vote rule change" — Reuters"ATA files lawsuit against National Mediation Board over voting rule" — ATWOnline"Airlines Split on Labor Rule Change" — TheStreet

You find the situations in the Sabre case and the Affiliate’s case to be virtually identical. Section 151 of the RLA relating to railroads (Subchapter I-General Provisions) defines “carrier” to include “…any company which is directly or indirectly owned or controlled by or under common control with any carrier by railroad and which operates any equipment or facilities or performs any service in connection with the transportation…of property…”, 45 U.S.C.§ 151. Section 181 of the RLA, (Subchapter II –Carriers by Air) extends the provisions of Subchapter I (except section 153) and the definition of “carrier” to cover air transportation.

You find the situations in the Sabre case and the Affiliate’s case to be virtually identical. Section 151 of the RLA relating to railroads (Subchapter I-General Provisions) defines “carrier” to include “…any company which is directly or indirectly owned or controlled by or under common control with any carrier by railroad and which operates any equipment or facilities or performs any service in connection with the transportation…of property…”, 45 U.S.C.§ 151. Section 181 of the RLA, (Subchapter II –Carriers by Air) extends the provisions of Subchapter I (except section 153) and the definition of “carrier” to cover air transportation.